- From: Kyle Simpson <getify@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 07:58:23 -0600
- To: "public html" <public-html@w3.org>
> Similarly with loading. Browsers need to be able to make intelligent > decisions on what to load when, including deciding (perhaps based on > bandwidth or other constraints) whether to prefetch things or wait > until they're needed. A browser that wants to conserve bandwidth -- > maybe it knows it's on a per-per-megabyte mobile connection, or it > doesn't want to interfere with other pages loading at the same time -- > might legitimately decide not to prefetch something no matter what the > author thinks. Another thing that’s curious to me about your assertion that the spec should stay out of such details like "loading": 4.3.1 The `script` element http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/scripting-1.html#running-a-script "6. If the user agent does not support the scripting language given by the script block's type for this script element, then the user agent must abort these steps at this point. The script is not executed." The context of this statement is that it's step 6, and it says to abort the steps if the `type` value is invalid. Step 12 is where the browser can fetch the resource, so this step 6 tells the browser effectively *not* to fetch/load a resource if the type is invalid. Other wording in this section seems to speak to the intent, which is that loading of the resource is specifically being prevented (not just a hint by the spec, but an algorithmic requirement), and that the idea is that this prevents an unnecessary load of the resource. I could easily argue back against this algorithm and say: "why shouldn't the browser be allowed to fetch the resource?" Why is the spec taking the extra step to restrict what the browser can do in this circumstance? And how is that not quite similar to what I'm suggesting? All I'm suggesting is that the spec should be consistent, and should give instruction on when to load resources and when not, for the containers like <object> and `Image` and <link>? And if you're in the business of telling the browser when to load and not, why not also give some guidance to the browser how it should handle caching of those resources during those specifically defined loading scenarios? That is, I'm only suggesting that maybe the dynamically inserted use-case for these containers should be more well-defined for loading and caching behavior, *NOT* the markup driven use-cases. I don't see how specifying narrow loading/caching behavior under those very specific circumstances is overly restricting the browser's ability to make optimization judgments under other scenarios? --Kyle
Received on Monday, 20 December 2010 13:59:02 UTC